Robert Gates announcement

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: smashp



Make sure you check your closet tonight for the boogey man before you go to sleep.


Wait

you already do every evening


not

surprising

After you figure out how to correctly post on internet forums, then you can start to talk politics

with

the big


boys.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Genx87
Wow why cut the F-22 program now??!?!?!?!?!?!?

I don't think they cut it, looks like it is capped to 187 planes.

EDIT: Link

They capped it. Zumwalt got limited to 4, with a few more Arleigh Burkes coming out. ABL is now limited to one test plane. Presidential Helo got whacked.

Nothing too horrible.

Capping the F-22 at 187 units actually leaves the production line intact, and has given it a window of 4 more for the Congressional compromises to fight it out for a few more.
They will probably end up with around a total of 200 as a compromise.

The original projection was for 750 of them, and they could have had that number if they would have actually funded it originally
at the price they ended up paying to get the reduced fleet.
This was the 'TFX' from back in 1992, that just kept being nickled and dimed to death.
Stretching it out slowly at lower numbers is what ran the cost to unrealistic extremes.

The F-22 is an Air Superiority Fighter, and nothing can get within 75 miles of it without being blown away.
Keep it domestically on our shores to keep others from even getting close.

Push for the expansion of the F-35 (JSF) - the fleet total was supposed to be 4,500 and they started the same game with it.
It will replace several 'other' aging vehicles with an 80% common platform with derivatives.
The F-35 is only 16 feet shorter than the F-22, 6 feet less wingspan, uses the same engines
and most common avionic and stelth electronic packages.

 

[theeedude]

We don't have the money. It's a shame so much of it has already been plowed into this project. It is the best manned fighter jet ever, no doubt, but the future skies belong to simpler and cheaper unmanned fighter planes, not $150M chunks of flying corporate welfare.

 

[ProfJohn]

I wish we were making as much of an effort to cut domestic spending as well.

 

[Sacrilege]

On "military enthusiast" forums I've seen alot of conservatives in crisis mode over these cuts. Talking about killing American liberals en masse for treason over these defense cuts. It's amazing how psychopathic the core conservatives have become.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
On "military enthusiast" forums I've seen alot of conservatives in crisis mode over these cuts. Talking about killing American liberals en masse for treason over these defense cuts. It's amazing how psychopathic the core conservatives have become.

Any links? I'm always up for a good laugh.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
On "military enthusiast" forums I've seen alot of conservatives in crisis mode over these cuts. Talking about killing American liberals en masse for treason over these defense cuts. It's amazing how psychopathic the core conservatives have become.

They talk about 'weakening' America, but they don't realize that spending all this money on unused and unneeded Cold War era style weaponry makes America weaker because we have less money devoted to the weapons systems we need for the future of combat. I don't think we should be completely abandoning future weapon development for fighter jets or surface ships, but we need to be realistic in how we spend our money and look at what we need today. Look at what systems are being used today in combat and look to improve those. The F-22 won't help us kill terrorists in Afghanistan any better than what we currently have. Additionally, with the F-35 being rolled into service soon, the F-22, as cool as it is, is not needed nearly as much.

An area where we should probably invest more money: Blackhawk replacements or future helicopter development for the type of warfare we've been involved in.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Do you own defense stock :laugh:

Nah. Lockheed actually went up 9% today, but with this news, I don't think that will hold tomorrow when the floor opens .

I know people that work on said program(s) and hearing this kind of news in this economy is a bit scary .

Yeah i'm not shedding any tears for them

Yeah, because their jobs don't count as jobs.

Lots of people are losing their jobs these days. With our current economic crisis, are the people manufacturing a $320 million jet that has never seen combat really surprised they aren't a priority in the defense budget?

I'm sure all those American Scientists and Engineers appreciate the job cuts.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of people are losing their jobs these days. With our current economic crisis, are the people manufacturing a $320 million jet that has never seen combat really surprised they aren't a priority in the defense budget?

I'm sure all those American Scientists and Engineers appreciate the job cuts.

Why are they losing their jobs? Did they forget how to design planes?

 

[Beanie46]

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) condemned the proposal again today, this time from the deck of an aircraft carrier somewhere allegedly in the "Gulf", where the troops were in harm's way. Claimed the Obama/Gates defense budget was simply cutting and gutting the military........odd that comment given the current administration's military budget proposal is a tick over $533B, a little more than Bush's last military budget of a tick over $514B. I guess adding $19B to a budget from one year to the next is gutting it....unless you're Inhofe and your state loses a defense contract on some battlefield control junk (supposed to coordinate all vehicles on the battlefield so everyone knows where everyone is at all times). Too bad that contract is well over a decade behind in development not to mention billions over budget, so I guess Inhofe has an axe to grind.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of people are losing their jobs these days. With our current economic crisis, are the people manufacturing a $320 million jet that has never seen combat really surprised they aren't a priority in the defense budget?

I'm sure all those American Scientists and Engineers appreciate the job cuts.

Why are they losing their jobs? Did they forget how to design planes?

Engineers in other industries are losing their jobs left and right. Defense should not be a sacred cow that is exempt from economic realities.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of people are losing their jobs these days. With our current economic crisis, are the people manufacturing a $320 million jet that has never seen combat really surprised they aren't a priority in the defense budget?

Isn't that the point of our defense is to ensure we never have to use any weapon? That be being so overwhelmingly superior, we deter an aggressor - at least any sane aggressor, terrorists don't count of course.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of people are losing their jobs these days. With our current economic crisis, are the people manufacturing a $320 million jet that has never seen combat really surprised they aren't a priority in the defense budget?

Isn't that the point of our defense is to ensure we never have to use any weapon?

No. It's time to stop buying useless weapons and invest in useful ones.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of people are losing their jobs these days. With our current economic crisis, are the people manufacturing a $320 million jet that has never seen combat really surprised they aren't a priority in the defense budget?

Isn't that the point of our defense is to ensure we never have to use any weapon?

No. It's time to stop buying useless weapons and invest in useful ones.

For you, what are the useful weapons you would like to see the US invest in?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of people are losing their jobs these days. With our current economic crisis, are the people manufacturing a $320 million jet that has never seen combat really surprised they aren't a priority in the defense budget?

Isn't that the point of our defense is to ensure we never have to use any weapon?

No. It's time to stop buying useless weapons and invest in useful ones.

For you, what are the useful weapons you would like to see the US invest in?

How about we let DOD decide what weapons are useful for our defense, instead of congressional delegations deciding which ones are useful for bringing pork home.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dphantom

For you, what are the useful weapons you would like to see the US invest in?

How about we let DOD decide what weapons are useful for our defense, instead of congressional delegations deciding which ones are useful for bringing pork home.

I am asking for his opinion on what he feels would be appropriate weapons since he offered an opinion that the F-22 was not.

So how about you go play with your toys and let adults exchange opinions?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of people are losing their jobs these days. With our current economic crisis, are the people manufacturing a $320 million jet that has never seen combat really surprised they aren't a priority in the defense budget?

Isn't that the point of our defense is to ensure we never have to use any weapon?

No. It's time to stop buying useless weapons and invest in useful ones.

For you, what are the useful weapons you would like to see the US invest in?

Gates said they need unmanned drones, more money for surveillance and intelligence, more money for feet on the ground, and more money for special forces.

So while we have hangers full of 187 F22s gathering dust awaiting the next World War, we can reallocate funds from that program to what Gates wanted.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dphantom

For you, what are the useful weapons you would like to see the US invest in?

How about we let DOD decide what weapons are useful for our defense, instead of congressional delegations deciding which ones are useful for bringing pork home.

I am asking for his opinion on what he feels would be appropriate weapons since he offered an opinion that the F-22 was not.

So how about you go play with your toys and let adults exchange opinions?

It's not just his opinion, it's also that of secretary of defense, you know, the guy in charge of making these decisions.
What you think is or isn't useful or appropriate is irrelevant in this case. You can continue engage in your verbal masturbation if you got nothing better to do.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of people are losing their jobs these days. With our current economic crisis, are the people manufacturing a $320 million jet that has never seen combat really surprised they aren't a priority in the defense budget?

Isn't that the point of our defense is to ensure we never have to use any weapon?

No. It's time to stop buying useless weapons and invest in useful ones.

For you, what are the useful weapons you would like to see the US invest in?

Gates said they need unmanned drones, more money for surveillance and intelligence, more money for feet on the ground, and more money for special forces.

So while we have hangers full of 187 F22s gathering dust awaiting the next World War, we can reallocate funds from that program to what Gates wanted.

No arguments there. I agree mostly.

Here's my list:
Cancel
F-22, presidential helicopter upgrade, Army combat system, no more Arleigh Burke dds

Add/Keep
12 carrier Navy with associated support
Lots more drones
Expand Stryker brigades
Round out combat brigades to 3 full infantry battalions instead of 2 today
Add 3 more infantry dv - 1 light, 1 mtn, 1 mechanized
Add C-17s
Expand F-35 program
Expand ABM programs

I would not expand SF units. We are using them more as infantry in Afghanistan today. But that's because we do not have enough combat brigades.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: senseamp

It's not just his opinion, it's also that of secretary of defense, you know, the guy in charge of making these decisions.
What you think is or isn't useful or appropriate is irrelevant in this case. You can continue engage in your verbal masturbation if you got nothing better to do.

I am not interested in Gates opinion. Anyone can parrot another without thinking. I want to know what he thinks.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Patriots are speaking out against the surrender president.

"Now we no longer have a ?global war on terror,'? Gingrich said. ?We have ?overseas contingency operations? Now we will no longer have ?terrorist attacks.? We will have ?man-made disasters.? None of our enemies seem to have learned this new language."



Hope and change!

HTTP 404 Error- Patriot not found.